from the How-To-Avoid-A-Beatin'-101 dept

Last month, dashcam video of a 23-year-old (Victoria) Texas cop throwing a 76-year-old man to the ground and tasing him emerged, leading to plenty of outrage across the web. The imagined "crime" was the lack of an inspection sticker on the vehicle the elderly man was driving. Of course, had the officer known the law, he would have known that inspection stickers aren't needed on vehicles with dealer plates -- something that could have been confirmed by anyone inside the car dealership where the incident occurred.

Here's the video:

As a side note, Scott Greenfield notes that this is a good example of why the Supreme Court's recent decision to cut law enforcement officers additional slack is a bad idea. Thanks to its Heien v. North Carolina decision, stops and searches predicated on nonexistent laws are perfectly legal, thanks to a very fluid interpretation of the word "reasonable."

Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground. Whether the facts turn out to be not what was thought, or the law turns out to be not what was thought, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the law. There is no reason, under the text of the Fourth Amendment or our precedents, why this same result should be acceptable when reached by way of a reasonable mistake of fact, but not when reached by way of a similarly reasonable mistake of law.

The young cop didn't understand the law, but he wasn't about to let a citizen who did explain it to him. So, he shoved, tased and threw the uncooperative citizen to the ground. He had no legal reason to make this stop (the law he enforced wasn't actually a law) but he was "reasonable" in his belief that every Texas vehicle should have an inspection sticker.

But is it a good idea to tase elderly men who won't immediately kowtow to someone who clearly isn't interested in hearing the "illegal" act he's getting all excited about isn't actually legal? Photography Is Not A Crime tried to find out.

[W]e figured it couldn’t take that long to read through the use of force policy, so we made a public records request, only to be told by the city’s legal department that releasing the policy “could impair an officer’s ability to arrest a suspect by placing individuals at an advantage in confrontations with police.”

This rationale is deployed far too frequently in order to keep law enforcement documents locked up. PINAC points out that other police departments have released use of force policies to the public and somehow managed to still effectively enforce the law. Why not the Victoria PD? Perhaps it felt the release of the document would give the 76-year-old Pete Vasquez an unfair advantage the next time he's approached by an officer for a crime he didn't commit. Can't have the public redefining the terms of engagement by using the police officer's own terms of engagement against him.

And it's not as if though policies are followed closely or strictly enforced. Past abuses show that police officers frequently use more force than is necessary and rarely, if ever, suffer any long-term consequences for these actions.

Based on the findings of the administrative investigation, Nathaniel Robinson’s employment with the Victoria Police Department has been terminated.

Now that he's been dismissed, Robinson won't be in any hurry to explain why he felt it necessary to resort to violence over a "missing" (but not really, according to the actual law) inspection tag. Is this really the sort of crime where use of force policies need to come into play, especially when the perp is four times the age of the officer? I guess we'll never know. The Victoria PD doesn't want to talk about its policies. It did the right thing by dumping a dangerous officer, but its accountability doesn't end there. If those being policed are going to develop any further understanding of the PD's use of force, they need to have access to that document. Pretending the release will help perps escape cops is a cheap dodge.

from the the-first-amendment-is-tricky dept

We've been somewhat concerned about various attempts to pass laws against revenge porn. While revenge porn itself is immensely troubling, the problem is that any law that seeks to carve out revenge porn almost certainly leads to dangerous unintended consequences. I recognize that many pushing for such laws have very good intentions, but I worry if, in the haste to "pass a law," the consequences of such laws are being ignored. And then there's the question of whether or not these laws are even constitutional. There's a good chance that many of them are not.

But the Texas court says it's a First Amendment violation. First, it notes that photography is, by definition, "inherently expressive," and thus there's certainly an expressive act which implicates the First Amendment.

The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen or paintbrush. Using a camera to create a
photograph or video is like applying pen to paper to create a writing or applying brush to canvas to
create a painting. In all of these situations, the process of creating the end product cannot reasonably
be separated from the end product for First Amendment purposes. This is a situation where the
“regulation of a medium inevitably affects communication itself.” We conclude that a person’s
purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment
protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.

And then you run into some First Amendment problems, even if the photographs are sexual in nature:

As the Supreme Court has explained, “Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First
Amendment,” and even some obscene sexual expression enjoys First Amendment protection if it
occurs solely within the confines of the home. Of course, the statute at issue here does not require
that the photographs or visual recordings be obscene, be child pornography, or even be depictions
of nudity, nor does the statute require the intent to produce photographs or visual recordings of that
nature. Banning otherwise protected expression on the basis that it produces sexual arousal or
gratification is the regulation of protected thought, and such a regulation is outside the
government’s power.

It then goes on to quote a Texas Supreme Court ruling (which in turn is quoting the Federal Supreme Court) in noting:

The government cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of
controlling a person’s private thoughts. First Amendment freedoms are most in
danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that
impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must
be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.

That's to drive home the point that the fact that many of these laws focus on the person's intent is problematic.

The court further points out:

We also keep in mind the Supreme Court’s admonition that the forms
of speech that are exempt from First Amendment protection are limited, and we should not be quick
to recognize new categories of unprotected expression

That doesn't mean there aren't possible solutions. The court notes that there is a legitimate interest in protecting privacy, but says that the current law is way too broad, and covers plenty of situations where privacy is not truly implicated.

The State asserts an interest in protecting the privacy of those photographed or recorded.
Privacy constitutes a compelling government interest when the privacy interest is substantial and the
invasion occurs in an intolerable manner. We agree with the State that substantial privacy interests
are invaded in an intolerable manner when a person is photographed without consent in a private
place, such as the home, or with respect to an area of the person that is not exposed to the general
public, such as up a skirt.

But § 21.15(b)(1) contains no language addressing privacy concerns. The provision certainly
applies to situations in which privacy has been violated, but that is because the provision applies
broadly to any non-consensual act of photography or visual recording, as long as it is accompanied
by the requisite sexual intent. It is obvious that the portion of the statute at issue is not the least
restrictive means of protecting the substantial privacy interests in question.

And thus, the ruling actually suggests a much more narrowly tailored law might pass muster.

there are narrower methods of reaching such
situations that address more directly the substantial privacy interests at stake. For instance,
subsection (b)(2) of the statute provides an alternative culpable mental state of “with intent to . . .
invade the privacy of the other person.” If this culpable mental state were a conjunctive element
of subsection (b)(1), it would narrow the provision at least somewhat to address privacy concerns.
Subsection (b)(1) could also be narrowed by adding an element that requires that a person’s privacy
interest be invaded as a result of the place of the person recorded or the manner in which a visual
recording is made. Or the legislature could designate specific places and manners that are
proscribed, such as specifically proscribing the taking of a photograph of a person inside his home
there are narrower methods of reaching such or the taking of a photograph underneath a person’s clothing. Because less restrictive alternatives
would adequately protect the substantial privacy interests that may sometimes be threatened by non-consensual photography, the provision at issue before us fails to satisfy strict scrutiny.

Thus, whether or not the State appeals this ruling to the state Supreme Court (as seems likely), it's possible that a more narrowly tailored law might be allowed, if it really focuses on situations that violate someone's privacy.

In the end, it's good to see overly broad laws tossed out, even if there are extremely legitimate concerns about the nature of revenge porn. Some people have asked why we don't advocate for a specific solution, and the general answer is that it's not clear there's a good one that doesn't also entail significant consequences for other forms of speech (or innovation, in cases where these bills try to attack intermediary liability). Revenge porn sites are immensely problematic, but just because something is problematic does not necessarily mean that a new (often overly broad) law is the answer.

If you can't read it, it basically says that Berry has come across some information on a "national domestic extremism trend" that is echoed by local activist groups. He claims to have found "mirror warning signs" in "FBI intel." From there, his own report follows, naming such unlikely domestic extremists as CopBlock, CopWatch and Peaceful Streets. Also included are sovereign citizens groups and government accountability activists. [pdf link]

A nationwide movement has begun against the United States Government and all government officials including those at the local level and the police officers employed by these agencies (Anonymous, 2012). Locally, numerous activists have combined their programs to work together towards the same agenda, which seems similarly in line with that of the national revolution movement…

His report goes on to say that these disparate groups share common members and acknowledges that the operations themselves are often peaceful -- or at least, not directly violent. But he calls out individual members for social media posts containing broad threats or other antagonistic behavior as being indicative of these groups' latent potential for violence.

Below is several screen shots that show these organizations intentions, statements, and goals that should not be discredited as mere chatter, but considered an active threat until after November 5, 2012...

Unfortunately, the screenshots are not among the documents posted at antimedia.org [which also include discussion of an online impersonation charge that likely went nowhere], but anyone who's perused a few comment threads or Facebook posts can probably imagine what was included. In any group, there are always a few commenters who will advocate for violence in response to police misconduct and abuse. These are generally not indicative of the group in total, but do tend to skew higher in certain activist groups. Rather than address the threats as words of individuals, Berry tries to tie the whole thing together as a revolutionary force composed of sovereign citizens, police accountability activists and Anonymous itself. Then he uses a movie to illustrate the severity of the situation.

A good visual of what they are hoping for can be seen in the movie for V for Vendetta. basically what they are basing all their movements off of. At time marker 1 hour 42 minutes a detective is heard telling the plan which is basically hoping one police officer will make a mistake and poor decision, in the case of the movie killing an unarmed child committing a minor offense. They then used that event to bring out regular people to support their cause. Though in real life they do not have numbers needed to pull anything like that off, which is why they will have to create a problem by claiming one-thing ahead of time, then forcing police to take a certain action. My concern is that John Bush has already stockpiled up weapons…

… and so on. Fortunately, Justin Berry's hysteria (possibly prompted by some recorded run-ins with members of these groups) falls mostly on deaf ears. Much more measured responses are given by other law enforcement officers and supervisors.

Following the notification that Peaceful Streets was planning to hand out free cameras to citizens to record police activity, Lt. Robert Richman had this to say.

Please see Tom's email below. It summarizes a very good approach to use while discussing the recent "video" activist movement with our officers. If our officers encounter any problems with the activists. please have them bookmark the incident via DMAV and send me a copy of the case number.

Although we don't anticipate any issues, officers should always be cognizant of their officer safety and the safety of the citizens on scene. If problems do arise. officers should be well versed on the various tools available within the law that may assist them. A few examples are:

Calming, but with a hint of authority behind it. He references "Tom's email," which is even more forthright in its assertion that recording police officers is perfectly acceptable behavior.

I have reminded my officers that there is nothing wrong with citizens recording us while we work. Don't let someone bait us into a negative confrontation.

The would-be camera-persons are to keep their distance and not interfere with the Incident. I have told my guys that 30' is a fair guideline for acceptable distance, since any closer and the subject becomes a potential immediate threat, which causes an officer to divide their attention. However this will be up to the officer to reasonably articulate if they decide to enforce this. Ultimately, maintain officer safety and if the person attempting to records us legitimately interferes with a police incident, arrest them.

I have encouraged my officers to welcome the recordings and present a pleasant professional image for the cameras. "Smile and wave, gang. Smile and wave" - The less our officers respond to the baiting, the more quickly they will tire of their game.

Lt. Tom Sweeney's advice is sound, although he's a bit wrong to belittle recording police officers as a "game." To some, it undoubtedly is, but to many others, it's one of the only forms of officer accountability available to average citizens.

Additionally. some officers have complained about the activists posting links on Face Book tothe officer's pay and other personal data. Officers should be reminded that our pay is actually public record and easily found as is many other bits of information via a simple Google search. Officers should be reminded to lock down the security settings on their Face Book accounts and to cleanse any personal data they find on the internet by contacting the site which shows the data.

Antimedia.org portrays this as a wholesale libeling of these activist groups, but what's released here appears to be nothing more than the fruits of one officers' personal, um, vendetta. As was briefly mentioned earlier, Berry has had multiple run-ins with one of these activist groups -- Peaceful Streets -- and appears to be hoping to find a "legal" way to mute their presence (note how it's listed first and explained in the greatest detail). The other cops in the thread appear to be much more pragmatic, even up to the point of feeling citizen recordings are a "game" that activists will tire of if officers refuse to rise to the "bait." Berry's inferences are objectionable but he seems to be finding little support. Without that, there's not much he can do.

from the church-and-state dept

Public libraries: they're important. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, somebody is going to have to explain to me why we occasionally see people attempt to take books out of libraries on either religious or decency grounds. It seems to me that these people often need a lecture on the First Amendment and how they probably want to be careful about eroding its protections. The latest in need of such a lecture is a group of Texas religious leaders who are circulating a letter demanding a local public library remove all works of fiction that have to do with vampires and the occult.

Phillip Missick and other religious leaders have called on the Austin Memorial Library to remove books about vampires, demons and other magical beings from the teen section. Missick is circulating a petition that requests that the "occultic and demonic room be shut down, and these books be purged from the shelves, and that public funds would no longer be used to purchase such material, or at least require parents to check them out for their children," according to the Cleveland Advocate.

Missick's reasoning for this is the same moral panic crap we've written about so often: if children read about the occult, they'll end up being demonic little hooligans or whatever. It's Dungeons and Dragons, video games, and chess all over again. But it's all the more egregious when a religious leader calls for the removal of secular funds from a public institution to fulfill his religious views. We don't do that in America. Let me show Pastor Missick why we don't do that, using one of his own statements.

"This is dark. There's a sexual element. You have creatures that aren't human. I think it's dangerous for our kids," Missick, a pastor at King of Saints Tabernacle of Cleveland, told KTRK.

Now, let me think what other books that might exist that I could argue contain dark literature, sexual elements, and creatures that aren't human? Oh, I know! How about the bible? Plenty that could be considered dark, what with the detailed descriptions of war and Cain killing Abel and all that. Sexual elements? Oh, you betcha, what with the incestuous date-rape of Lot by his daughters and the orgies and whatnot. Non-human creatures? Well, you know, there's God, angels, and demons, so yeah. Most public libraries carry the bible in the reference section, alongside the equally dark-n-sexy religious texts from other major religions.

So, are we going to ban the bible in public libraries because of this? Shall we insist no public funds go to buying religious texts, including the bible? Of course not, because libraries aren't for partisan texts, they're for all texts that have value to the public, including texts we may not care for. You can't understand literature if you don't have a basic understanding of religious texts and you can't understand the current realm of young-adult fiction if you don't have access to vampire books. Sad, but that's the way it is.

So, hey, to my religious friends: stop trying to ban books. You're chipping away at a federal law that allows you to exist.

from the incredible dept

Over at Popehat, there's a fascinating story about the depths to which patent trolls will go to "protect" their business models. The story involves Landmark Technologies, a troll we wrote about earlier this year for its rather aggressive take on patent trolling. Landmark holds patent 6,289,319: 'Automatic Business and Financial Transaction Processing System.' Or, as the EFF puts it more succinctly: paying with a credit card online. eBay recognized that Landmark's trolling was bad news, and filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a re-exam of three patents. The USPTO initially recognized eBay's request, noting that there were "substantial" questions about the patentability in those patents. While it eventually left two of the patents alone, it dumped many of the claims in a third patent.

In May, however, Landmark sued eBay and its lawyer individually for daring to challenge its patents. Landmark claimed abuse of process, malicious prosecution, tortious interference with prospective business relations, negligent interference with prospective business relations and negligence against eBay and its lawyers... all for using the process allowed by the USPTO to request a re-exam. Landmark (really one guy: Lawrence Lockwood) and his lawyers are asking for $5 million for eBay daring to ask the USPTO to review his patents.

This is all happening in (of course) East Texas, the favorite venue for patent trolls over the past decade. Of course, there's one, new issue with filing such a lawsuit in East Texas, and that's that Texas recently put in place one of the best anti-SLAPP laws around, letting people hit back at baseless lawsuits that try to stifle free speech (SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

Each of Landmark’s claims against eBay is subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP
statute because it is clear on the face of the Complaint that each of those claims is based on,
relates to, and is in response to eBay’s exercise of its right to petition and right of free speech.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003(a). Specifically, each claim is based entirely on
eBay’s petitioning of the PTO to review the validity of the Patents through the ex parte
reexamination procedure, and eBay’s statements to the PTO in connection with those petitions.
For example, Landmark’s abuse of process claim is based on the allegation that “Defendants
made an illegal, improper, or perverted use of process before the USPTO in submitting erroneous
and misleading Requests for reexamination of Plaintiff’s Patents in violation of federal law[.]” ....

The filing of a request for reexamination with the PTO plainly constitutes an exercise of
eBay’s right to petition shielded by the anti-SLAPP statute. The statute defines the “exercise of
the right to petition” to include “a communication in or pertaining to an executive or other
proceeding before a department of the…federal government or a subdivision of the…federal
government.” .... The PTO is a federal agency in
the U.S. Department of Commerce that performs adjudicatory functions.... Patent reexamination proceedings before the
PTO are official proceedings established by federal law.... Thus, eBay’s
reexamination requests constitute communications made in or pertaining to an executive
proceeding before a department of the federal government, and fall within the protection of the
right to petition under the anti-SLAPP statute

Popehat notes that Larry Lockwood has actually tried this before, suing a different law firm using the same theories and was laughed out of court (and that was back before the Texas anti-SLAPP law was in place). Thanks to that anti-SLAPP law, Lockwood may be on the hook for eBay's attorneys' fees. Perhaps he'll "pay them with a credit card online."

from the respect-my-non-existent-authority! dept

The Texas Dept. of Public Safety has apparently decided that if you'd like to be allowed to drive a vehicle in the state, you'd also perfectly fine with a criminal booking-style fingerprinting and having those immediately uploaded to a criminal database (that reps swear isn't a criminal database).

The other day at the Texas driver’s license center, while paying for my required in-person renewal, the clerk said it was time to take my fingerprints.

What?

Really. Quietly, earlier this year, the Texas Department of Public Safety began requiring full sets of fingerprints from everyone who obtains a new driver’s license or photo identification card. This applies to those who come in as required for periodic renewals, but it doesn’t apply to mail-in renewals.

Not only that, but since 2010, Texas law enforcement has been running facial recognition searches on DPS license photos with its Image Verification System.

When Lieber exposed this, thanks in part to a former DPS employee (who noted the full set of prints are uploaded to AFIS [Automated Fingerprint Identification Service], creating a record in criminal databases if no previous record exists), a spokesman for the agency said it was perfectly legal plus pretty awesome at fighting crime.

A DPS spokesman tells me that the 9-year-old law makes a clear reference to fingerprints so the new fingerprint collection system is legal.

DPS spokesman Tom Vinger says, “It is important to understand that the purpose of this process is to combat fraud, identity theft and other criminal activity, including potentially thwarting terroristic activity. Making sure that people are who they say they are in the process of issuing government identification is a critical safeguard to protect the public against a wide array of criminal threats.”

The Department is confident in its legal authority to collect 10-prints. The authority exists in current statute, including Transportation Code 521.059, (see below), and in current administrative code. The technology upgrade was funded by the Texas Legislature…

Sec. 521.059. IMAGE VERIFICATION SYSTEM. (a) The department shall establish an image verification system based on the following identifiers collected by the department:

(1) an applicant’s facial image; and (2) an applicant’s thumbprints or fingerprints.

(b) The department shall authenticate the facial image and thumbprints or fingerprints provided by an applicant for a personal identification certificate, driver’s license, or commercial driver’s license or permit using image comparison technology to ensure that the applicant:

(1) is issued only one original license, permit, or certificate; (2) does not fraudulently obtain a duplicate license, permit, or certificate; and (3) does not commit other fraud in connection with the application for a license, permit, or certificate.

(c) The department shall use the image verification system established under this section only to the extent allowed by Chapter 730, Transportation Code, to aid other law enforcement agencies in:

(1) establishing the identity of a victim of a disaster or crime that a local law enforcement agency is unable to establish; or(2) conducting an investigation of criminal conduct.

Vinger may be correct that the DPS is allowed to collect prints as the result of this law, but it's not specifically ordered (or permitted) to collect all 10 prints. Note that the section quoted says "thumbprints or fingerprints." This "or" is important. A look at the actual amendments to existing law shows that the DPS isn't actually required to demand a full set of prints.

(b) The application must include: (1) the thumbprints of the applicant or, if thumbprints cannot be taken, the index fingerprints of the applicant;

So, there's no legal backing to Vinger's claims. Sure, the DPS is technically permitted to collect all 10 prints, but only because nothing specifically forbids this practice. But the law does not demand all 10 prints be provided in order to obtain a license or identification card. The law only asks for thumbprints or index prints.

This is why it was rolled out quietly. The DPS has no legal "authority" to demand a full set of prints before handing out a license. What it can do, however, is ask for them. At this point, supplying a full set of prints is purely voluntary. The DPS can't prevent you from obtaining a license if you refuse, but the whole system is set up to make it appear as though it's mandatory.

Bill co-author Juan M. Escobar, who in 2005 was a state representative from Kingsville, said he recalled the point of his bill was to prevent immigrants living in the U.S. illegally from obtaining a driver’s license.

“I think the intent of the bill was to ensure that the individual was the right person that was applying for a driver’s license,” said Escobar, now county judge in Kleberg County. “The intent was to avoid the privacy issue violation. We’ll just do the thumbprint or the index finger. That was my intent.”

He added, “If they’ve gone past the law, there’s nothing that gives them that authority.”

Escobar mentions illegal immigration. DPS rep Vinger mentions terrorism. Both used tangential hot-button issues to further the amount of information demanded by Texas in exchange for a highly-essential part of everyday life. But the DPS is now exceeding even the questionable aspects of a law predicated mostly on fear. (As Lieber points out in the comments, even the 2005 law was partially motivated by terrorism fears, prompted by Gov. Perry's 2005 Homeland Security Action Plan. [pdf, p. 36])

The state gave the DPS the authority to collect index prints if thumbprints couldn't be obtained. For whatever reason, the DPS -- nearly a decade later -- has decided to roll out a very imaginative reading of the 2005 statute. Worse, it's claiming its interpretation of words that aren't actually there is "legal authority." And when questioned, it's falling back on "terrorism" and but-surely-you-want-criminals-to-be-caught rationalizing.

from the the-grabbing-hands-grab-all-they-can... dept

Want to record the police while they're on the job? Go ahead, the Supreme Court has (again) upheld your First Amendment right to do so, provided you aren't on the wrong side of way too many exceptions. This is your right, no matter what the officer 90 feet away is yelling about "interference." That's just plain ignorance on the part of that officer.

At 3:00 into the video, the traffic stop has concluded and Andrew starts to walk away, when he is confronted by Deputy Stokes of the Gray County Sheriff's Office. Stokes, who has since become employed by the Pampa Police Department, immediately attempted to seize the photography equipment as evidence. Stokes refuses to get a supervisor on request, tells Andrew to stop talking, and threatens to arrest Andrew when Andrew points out that he has a First Amendment right to speak. When that happened, Stokes said that "I think I'll make up stuff" and attempted to grab the camera from Andrew (at 3:50).

"Seized as evidence." This is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Stokes wants to grab a camera (and actually gets ahold of it twice) but can't think of a good reason. So he falls back on this one. "Evidence" of what exactly, though? The concluded traffic stop? Stokes' own ignorance of the legal right to record law enforcement officers? The charges he's going to attempt to bring against the photographer? It would appear to be the latter, especially with Stokes' assertion that he's willing to "make up stuff."

But the obnoxious, abusive stupidity doesn't end there.

At about 4:20, the demand for ID begins by Stokes and he really shows his ignorance. First, as has been notednumeroustimesbefore, in Texas, under the Failure to Identify statute, one has to be under arrest to be obligated to provide their name, residence address, and date of birth to an officer. Otherwise, the statute merely makes it an offense to provide fictitious information.

"Failure to identify" is a Texas law enforcement specialty. Where other departments are forced to rely on nebulous charges like "interference," "disorderly conduct," wiretapping law violations or straight-faced discussions of law-enforcement-centric urban legend "the cellphone was a gun," Texas officers deploy "failure to identify" when shutting down camera-wielding citizens. But the law doesn't work the way they think it does.

After making this "error," Stokes compounds it by claiming -- in direct opposition to a great many court decisions (as well as common sense) -- that it's illegal to record police officers. This, too, fails to stick. The citizen knows the law better than Stokes does and other officers begin to realize Stokes is taking this interaction in a dangerous direction and convince him to walk away.

While I would not expect police officers to know every nuance of the many laws they enforce, I would at least expect them to remain current on the ones that are routinely abused. If they don't know the details, the problem lies with those responsible for training them. There's no excuse (other than simply being a bad cop) for an officer to make this many errors in the course of one interaction. Any law enforcement agency should be up-to-date on court decisions and (especially) lawsuits that target oft-disputed areas like citizens with cameras. At this point, an officer needs to be wilfully ignorant to remain this out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Stokes tried intimidation and his own, very personal version of legal statutes to get his way. He even tried a little physical force. But the cameraman stood up to him and he was ultimately forced to back off. But that's only one of the several dozen interactions between police and people exercising their First Amendment rights. The person doing the recording stayed out of jail and was never charged with anything, somewhat of a rarity in situations where laws are improperly forced into service by someone with more power than knowledge.

from the violating-both-due-process-and-the-realm-of-possibility dept

Back in April, a Texas district court judge (well, a "visiting judge") ordered Google to do the following:

The gag order, signed by visiting San Antonio Judge Richard Price in February 2013, forces Google and other search engines to wipe out all record of the allegations from the Internet. It also compels the search engine to find third parties who posted the information to get it back and destroy it.

This was to be done on behalf of Calvin C. Jackson, an attorney who was accused of forging signatures on court records. It's unknown whether the judge actually read what he was signing or if he did, whether he recognized how completely ridiculous the request was. Google may index the web and hold a commanding lead in the search engine market, but it certainly doesn't have the ability to demand third parties turn over and/or destroy content.

That the whole thing took place under seal and out of the public eye made it even more ridiculous. The court order demanding the impossible was also placed under seal, presumably to protect Jackson from being further linked to the allegations he was trying to bury. We can all see how well that worked out.

The order identified Google as an entity to whom the order must be sent. The order further required all identified recipients to expunge or destroy all records relating to the action other than certain, specifically identified records….

Constitutional due process requires a party to be served with process and to receive notice of an action to which it is an interested party. A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void…

It is clear from the record that Google was never named as a party to the suit, was never served with process, never waived or accepted process, and never made an appearance in the suit before the expunction order was entered. Nothing in the record establishes that Google stands in privity to the commission or to Jackson. Accordingly, we hold that Google was not a party to the suit and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders against Google.

As Eugene Volokh notes, this seems obvious enough. But it wasn't obvious to the lower court which ordered Google to go door-to-door around the internet with a paper shredder in tow.

Beyond the normal First Amendment ramifications, there's also the fact that Jackson was effectively asking the court (and Google by extension) to destroy public records. The allegations against Jackson weren't simply blog posts or newspaper articles. These allegations were part of a lawsuit brought against the attorney (the same lawsuit that didn't include Google). Public records can be expunged, but that's limited to what the court itself directly controls. Anything already posted to the internet is out of its reach. Calvin Jackson's quest for an allegation-free existence is futile, and every additional legal effort seems to place it just that much further out of reach.

from the to-acquit-a-cop,-you've-got-to-think-like-a-cop dept

We've discussed the multiple problems with the grand jury system here in the US -- a system that only survives in a handful of states. Grand juries are known both for their expedience and their willingness to indict nearly anyone for anything. True, they don't decide whether a person is guilty or innocent, but an indictment is the next best thing to a verdict for those indicted, many of which are imprisoned until they can be properly tried.

The grand jury in Harris County, Texas has an additional tool at its disposal, one not in use anywhere else in the state.

The armed carjacker projected on a large screen threatens to kill you if you don't give up your keys. Holding a modified gun that emits a beam, you pull the trigger when he draws his weapon, and seconds later fire again at another person who jumps in front with something in his hand.

The second person turns out to be a bystander holding a cellphone.

This interactive way of illustrating the use of deadly force is part of unusual training that Houston-area grand jurors can receive before they begin hearing cases, including those involving police officers.

This shooting simulator (which appears to be "Mad Dog McCree: Law Enforcement Edition," at least according to the published photo and the description above) puts grand jury members in the shoes of accused police officers. Grand juries may be able to indict ham sandwiches, but this particular grand jury has reached the conclusion that, despite derogatory slang linking the two, police officers are not ham sandwiches.

[A]n investigation by the Houston Chronicle last year found that Harris County grand juries have cleared Houston police officers in shootings 288 consecutive times since 2004.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any data on the simulator's effect on non-police shooting indictments. That the cops have been cleared 288 times without an indictment may not have as much to do with the shooting simulator's empathetic capabilities as it has to do with the grand jury being a grand jury.

Sandra Guerra Thompson, a criminal law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said grand juries usually give officers the benefit of the doubt in shooting cases because of the dangerous nature of their jobs.

The problem is that the more this benefit of a doubt is given, the less likely it is that officers will use training or restraint when in unsafe situations. If a teen answers the door carrying a Wii remote, they're free to open fire before ascertaining that the held item isn't a weapon. Harris County's shooting simulator plays into that mindset, inserting jurors as proxy cops into situations they're not trained to handle and using those visceral reactions to guide their indictment decisions.

So far, the courts have sided with the use of the simulator. The DA's office finds it to be "educational and helpful." Opponents say it promotes "pro-law enforcement bias." Sadly, these viewpoints aren't contradictory. Most DAs would find anything that locks "bad guys" up and keeps "good guys" on the street "helpful." A "pro-law enforcement bias" achieves these aims. And the track record -- 288 consecutive findings in favor of police officers -- speaks for itself.

[I]n a stunning and all-encompassing gag order signed over a year ago and now being appealed to Houston's 1st Court of Appeals, attorney Calvin C. Jackson, who was accused of forging attorney signatures on court records, demands Google erase all mention of those accusations from the entire Internet including other websites.

Jackson, who settled over these allegations (details also under a gag order), now wants it all to just go away. And he's gotten a Texas court to agree with him. Not only does he want the past erased, he's also seeking to bar "Google" from ever mentioning this unpleasantness again. So, we have both prior restraint and an impossibility, all wrapped up in a terrible gag order.

The requests Google is fighting play right to the edges of the "ridiculousness' envelope. Cleaning the internet isn't like expunging a criminal record, but this Texas court apparently feels Google (and other search engines) should be able to just go around deleting stuff, even stuff they doesn't own (which would be pretty much all of it).

The gag order, signed by visiting San Antonio Judge Richard Price in February 2013, forces Google and other search engines to wipe out all record of the allegations from the Internet. It also compels the search engine to find third parties who posted the information to get it back and destroy it.

"Get it back?" The hell? Does this judge really believe Google can just knock on the door of other sites and demand they hand over the "hard copy?" Once again, we have someone with power mistaking his home page for "The Internet." Google and other search engines index the web. They are not in charge of the web.

Judge Price doesn't seem to have any idea how Google is supposed to prevent future discussions of this case from appearing anywhere on the web. He just seems to feel a big company like this should be able to do anything he imagines it can. If he ever decides to leave the judicial racket, I'm sure the MPAA can set him up with an office, if UK Prime Minister David Cameron doesn't snatch him up first.

Let's not worry about that First Amendment. Let's just let Calvin Jackson control his past and future via court orders. Except that's not working out very well for him. The order may be sealed but the gag order doesn't cover this sort of discussion, or Google's arguments against prior restraint and impossibility. All he's done (with the court's blessing) is ensure more discussion of past allegations. And until this order gets reversed, every site discussing this (like us) will apparently be waiting for Google to knock on the door and ask that we turn over our "originals."